Kerala High Court
Pradeesh vs Union Bank Of India on 6 February, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 17TH MAGHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 3593 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
PRADEESH
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O CHANDRAN , NELLIKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
P.O.MANASSERY ,KOZHIKODE DT, PIN - 673602
BY ADVS.
M.R.REENA
P.S.SUJETH
RESPONDENT:
UNION BANK OF INDIA
MANASSERY -KOZHIKODE
REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER
KMCT AYURVEDA MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL
MANASSERI ,KOZHIKODE., PIN - 673602
BY ADVS.
ASP.KURUP
SADCHITH.P.KURUP(K/1419/2002)
C.P.ANIL RAJ(K/872/2007)
SIVA SURESH(K/2688/2022)
RESHMA RAJ(K/1150/2021)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 06.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.3593 of 2024
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 6th day of February, 2024
The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by
the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance
made by the Union Bank of India to the petitioner, invoking the
provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002.
2. The Bank paid ₹1.30 lakhs towards Vehicle Loan
and ₹6.50 Lakhs towards Term Loan in the year 2018 and
2019 respectively to the petitioner. The petitioner states that
though the petitioner made remittances promptly during the
initial repayment period of the financial advance, he could not
pay the repayment instalments promptly later due to Covid-19
pandemic. The repayment of loans fell into arrears later. It
happened due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner.
3. Though the petitioner requested the Bank to permit
the petitioner to repay the overdue amounts in easy monthly
instalments, the Bank authorities were not yielding. The
authorities, instead, started coercive proceedings, invoking
the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002 and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and
issued Ext.P1 notice.
4. The petitioner states that he is still in a position to
clear the overdue amounts towards the loans, if sufficient time
is given to clear the dues in easy monthly instalments. If the
respondent is permitted to continue with the coercive
proceedings and auction the secured assets provided by the
petitioner, he will be put to untold hardship and loss.
5. Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of
the Bank and denied all the statements made by the
petitioner. On behalf of the respondent, it is submitted that the
loans were given to the petitioner in the year 2018 and 2019.
The petitioner committed default in repaying the loans.
6. The Bank repeatedly reminded the petitioner and
required him to clear the dues. The petitioner deliberately
omitted to do so. In the circumstances, the Bank had no other
go than to proceed against the petitioner invoking the
provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002. The impugned Ext.P1 was issued in these
circumstances. The petitioner has not advanced any legal
reasons to thwart the coercive proceedings initiated by the
Bank.
7. The Standing Counsel, however, submitted that if
the petitioner is ready and willing to make a substantial
payment soon and remit the balance outstanding / overdue
amount immediately thereafter, a short breathing time can be
granted to the petitioner to clear the dues. The Standing
Counsel submitted that the outstanding amount towards
Vehicle Loan due to the Bank from the petitioner as on
06.02.2024 is ₹44,495/- and the overdue amount towards
Term Loan as on 06.02.2024 is ₹93,984/-.
8. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and the
Standing Counsel representing the Bank.
9. The specific case of the petitioner is that the
petitioner has been making the repayment and maintaining
the loan account initially. The default in repayment of the loan
occurred lately due to reasons beyond the control of the
petitioner. The petitioner has provided substantial security
which will safeguard the interest of the Bank.
10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am
inclined to dispose of the writ petition giving a short and
reasonable time to the petitioner to clear off the liability.
11. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the
following directions:
(i) The petitioner shall remit the
outstanding amount of ₹44,495/- towards
Vehicle Loan on or before 29.02.2024 and
the overdue amount of ₹93,984/- towards
Term Loam in 10 consecutive and equal
monthly instalments immediately thereafter
along with accruing interest and other Bank
charges, if any.
(ii) If the petitioner commits single default
in making payments as directed above, the
respondent will be at liberty to continue with
the coercive proceedings against the
petitioner in accordance with law.
(iii) The petitioner shall also pay current
EMIs of the Term Loan along with the
aforesaid payments.
(iv) If the petitioner makes payments as
directed above, coercive proceedings, if any,
against the petitioner shall stand deferred.
Sd/-
N.NAGARESH
JUDGE
spk
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3593/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE
OF THE DATED 10-10-2023 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 08-12-2023 SENT BY THE
PETITIONER
